Dui/ Jury Selection
3rd Dist. Village of Plainfield v. Nowicki, No. 3-05-0713 (August 18, 2006) Will County (LYTTON) Reversed and remanded
Trial court committed reversible error when it refused defense counsel's request that it question prospective jurors about their attitudes toward alcohol before DUI trial. Questioning jurors about whether they have any biases or prejudices that prevent them from being impartial does not guarantee that prejudices toward alcohol consumption will be revealed.

Sentencing/ Waiver
2nd Dist. People v. O'Neill, No. 2-05-0701 (August 28, 2006) Lake County (BOWMAN) Affirmed as modified
Defendant, convicted of driving her boat while intoxicated, did not waive issue of her entitlement to credit against fine for time spent in custody before being released on bond by failing to raise it in post trial motion.

Speedy Trial Act/ Law Of The Case
2nd Dist. People v. Izquierdo-Flores, No. 2-04-0515 (August 28, 2006) Lake County (McLAREN) (BOWMAN, dissent) Vacated and remanded
Earlier appellate court opinion holding that amended indictment charging defendant with first degree murder, as opposed to second degree murder in original one, were not 'new and additional charges' and, therefore, did not require that delays agreed to by defendant before amendment be disregarded for purposes of Speedy Trial Act, is clearly erroneous In light of People v. Williams opinion from S.Ct. Therefore, application of 'law of the case' doctrine would be unjust; and since charges were subject to mandatory joinder, first degree murder conviction must be vacated.

Search And Seizure/ Motion To Suppress / Controlled Substances
2nd Dist. People v. Tate , No. 2-04-0968 (August 10, 2006) Lee County (HUTCHINSON) (GILLERAN JOHNSON, dissent) Affirmed
Defendant was seized when, after he pulled into his brother's driveway, police surrounded his vehicle, and ordered him to show his hands. Further, trial court correctly suppressed evidence seized when police pulled him out of car and opened door to his vehicle at night while police were in the process of executing search warrant of premises. Search warrant was for presence of cannabis, with no suspicion that drugs were intended for delivery, or of gang activity, in location that was not a high crime area.

Fitness To Stand Trial/ Impeachment
2nd Dist. People v. Meyers, No. 2-04-1158 (August 15, 2006) Kane County (O'MALLEY) Affirmed
In defendant's trial for resisting police officer and aggravated battery of police officer, trial court was not required to presume that appellate court finding of unfitness in prior matter, based on conduct more than two years earlier, continued. Further, there is no evidence that mental condition, which led to prior finding, is permanent or long lasting; and defendant's conduct during subject trial does not independently raise bona fide doubt as to defendant's fitness. In addition, prior felony conviction of fleeing and alluding police officer was properly admitted for impeachment purposes after determination by trial court that probative value outweighed prejudicial effect.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
Eckstein v. Kingston, No. 05-2929 (8/16/06). Appeal, E.D. Wisc. Aff'd.
Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's habeas petition challenging his conspiracy to commit murder conviction based on claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to bring out evidence of govt. witness' mental disease and for failing to seek suppression of tape recording of conversation between defendant and said witness. Trial counsel did thorough job of raising doubts regarding witness' testimony, and mental illness evidence would not have altered outcome of trial where other evidence corroborated witness' testimony. Defendant also failed to establish any prejudice in admission of tape recording.

Motion To Suppress/ Murder / Confessions
1st Dist. People v. Mitchell, No. 1-02-1244 (August 4, 2006) 6th div. (TULLY) Reversed and remanded
Trial court's finding that defendant's statement was voluntary prior to trial for murder of 5 yr. old at grocery store, is against manifest weight of the evidence because: 1) delay of over 100 hours between detention and first incriminating statement without any probable cause hearing is unreasonable, 2) State failed to show any emergency or extraordinary circumstances justifying delay, 3) trial court's inconsistent findings of credibility with regards to State's witnesses destroys deference to which its findings must be given, 4) conditions of questioning of defendant, particularly after his return from hospital where he received stitches, were coercive. Therefore, statement must be suppressed and case remanded for new trial.